Good credible studies of why saturated fat is good and also breaskmilk constituents information

I was having a discussion with someone and we were talking about breastmilk's fat content. This person did not believe that human milk is high in fat. How much percentage of fat is in human milk and how much of it is saturated fat? Please cite your source.

My main question is, what studies are out there that show that saturated fat is not bad, but actually beneficial. If that can't be found, where are the points that Denise minger makes that disproves the conventional studies that people point to in order to show us that saturated fat causes/attributed heart disease.

I've read it all before but I can't seem to find this information when I need to confirm what I've come to understand. I used to have it all bookmarked but they are gone now. I would like if someone can link these studies or some work that disproves or debunks major studies that claim saturated fat is evil.

Any other good point/argument to make would be great. This person is just interested in this info and I would like to show them.

I did use google, but from my search I didnt find that much info or it was all varied. One site said milk is 54% fat and another site said 60% etc. Which one is right? That is why I was asking here for some credible sources for milks constituents. Maybe I was being lazy and didn't want to do a google scholar search.

3
Answers

"Human milk contains 0.8% to 0.9% protein, 4.5% fat, 7.1% carbohydrates, and 0.2% ash (minerals)" per weight. I beleive this is principally palmitic and oleic acid, which are SFA and MUFU from memory? This is about 55% fat of the caloric macro-nutrients.

Regarding heart disease- they cannot produce heart disease is animal models, using high fat diets alone. They have to use genetically altered animals, which get heart disease anyway without any effort. Nor have they found a smoking gun/mechanism for plaque.

The "evidence" atm is all statistical, and speculative (ie subjective), and there is a signficant bias (otherwise people would note the absence of these prior mentioned reliable forms of evidence).

I beleive the total absence of either a smoking gun mechanism, or a reliable animal model using only diet/lifestyle, is the most damming evidence against the lipid hypothesis.

Or simply put, theres nothing concrete evidence wise to it, in fact most/all of the evidence is either intervention (which relies on already sick people, and thus hard to apply to healthy people), or epidemology (just statistics). Its basically guessing.

You would think something that comes with a goverment recommendation, is preached by all doctors and schools has solid evidence, but it doesnt, it has flaky evidence.

But because people beleive anything an "authority" tells them without question or critique, and that such is also encouraged by the education system and by parents, people tend to beleive anything they are told has been "proven", when alot of it hasnt, and is ultimately just opinion.

I did use google, but from my search I didnt find that much info or it was all varied. One site said milk is 54% fat and another site said 60% etc. Which one is right? That is why I was asking here for some credible sources for milks constituents. Maybe I was being lazy and didn't want to do a google scholar search.

Human milk fat is characterized by high contents of palmitic and oleic acids. the former heavily concentrated in the 2-position and the latter in the 1- and 3-positions of the triglycerides. Fatty acid composition of milk fat varies somewhat with the composition of diet, particularly the fatty acids which it supplies. Phospholipids, amounting in the aggregate to about 75 mg/100 ml, include phosphatidyl ethanolamine, phosphatidyl choline, phosphatidyl serine, phosphatidyl inositol, and sphingomyelin.